Slot Limit - Revised

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by afterhours

I also would love to know why they didn't go with the 1 @ 36" which has a proven track record. Betcha it comes down to dollars in someone's (or some user group) pocket.

It is a fisheries based decision. The slot increases the chance that harvested fish are male. 36"+ fish will be prime breeding sized females. The fact that it isn't a full moratorium is a dollars decision.

[piemma]

WE NEED A MORATORIUM!!!

[tlapinski]

The drop in slot range protects the 2015 year class which, if I remember correctly, was the last good YOY index in the CB. There was discussion to setting a slot for commercial, but it was just that, discussion. The reason for the com regs to be as they are, from what I remember from when the slot was enacted, is to streamline enforcement as essentially any fish being harvested over 35" must come with a commercial license. Fair and equitable? Perhaps not, but if anglers could just be trusted to do the right thing in the first place, then it wouldn't be an issue

With the rec cut being in the range of 60% (I heard that number being thrown around but do not have it verified so do not hold me to it) there is good argument for commercial to take some sort of a cut in the near future, but this action does more good right now for the population. The emergency action is only in place for 180 days and therefore will be revisited at the summer meeting in August. At that time they can extend for 1 year, drop or modify it.

I am and have always been 100% recreational angler, but as is always lost in these discussions, commercial does not take the big piece of the striped bass harvest pie. It is us (or most of use in here anyway) the private recreational anglers who do the lion's share of the damage. You literally need to quintuple (multiply by 5) the annual commercial harvest to eclipse the annual recreational harvest, and even then you only do so by 4%. I know this is going to ruffle some feathers, and I am not trying to start a pissing match with anyone, I just feel there is a need to point out some facts when all the finger pointing goes elsewhere. Would a moratorium help? Sure, but it is not the magic bullet to fix all problems.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by tlapinski

I am and have always been 100% recreational angler, but as is always lost in these discussions, commercial does not take the big piece of the striped bass harvest pie. It is us (or most of use in here anyway) the private recreational anglers who do the lion's share of the damage. You literally need to quintuple (multiply by 5) the annual commercial harvest to eclipse the annual recreational harvest, and even then you only do so by 4%. I know this is going to ruffle some feathers, and I am not trying to start a pissing match with anyone, I just feel there is a need to point out some facts when all the finger pointing goes elsewhere. Would a moratorium help? Sure, but it is not the magic bullet to fix all problems.

I agree that we, the Rec. angler do a multiple of the damage to the stocks (harvest and release mortality) but even if the multiple is 5 times, EACH Comm. does prob. 10 times more damage vs EACH Rec. angler. I just think it is silly to ignore that and compare the 2 sectors while ignore the # of fisherman in each segment.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by zimmy

It is a fisheries based decision. The slot increases the chance that harvested fish are male. 36"+ fish will be prime breeding sized females. The fact that it isn't a full moratorium is a dollars decision.

^^^

Originally Posted by tlapinski

The drop in slot range protects the 2015 year class which, if I remember correctly, was the last good YOY index in the CB. There was discussion to setting a slot for commercial, but it was just that, discussion. The reason for the com regs to be as they are, from what I remember from when the slot was enacted, is to streamline enforcement as essentially any fish being harvested over 35" must come with a commercial license. Fair and equitable? Perhaps not, but if anglers could just be trusted to do the right thing in the first place, then it wouldn't be an issue

With the rec cut being in the range of 60% (I heard that number being thrown around but do not have it verified so do not hold me to it) there is good argument for commercial to take some sort of a cut in the near future, but this action does more good right now for the population. The emergency action is only in place for 180 days and therefore will be revisited at the summer meeting in August. At that time they can extend for 1 year, drop or modify it.

I am and have always been 100% recreational angler, but as is always lost in these discussions, commercial does not take the big piece of the striped bass harvest pie. It is us (or most of use in here anyway) the private recreational anglers who do the lion's share of the damage. You literally need to quintuple (multiply by 5) the annual commercial harvest to eclipse the annual recreational harvest, and even then you only do so by 4%. I know this is going to ruffle some feathers, and I am not trying to start a pissing match with anyone, I just feel there is a need to point out some facts when all the finger pointing goes elsewhere. Would a moratorium help? Sure, but it is not the magic bullet to fix all problems.

Should have rolled it all back, equally, a decade ago when we were watching the decline in real time.

[tlapinski]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I agree that we, the Rec. angler do a multiple of the damage to the stocks (harvest and release mortality) but even if the multiple is 5 times, EACH Comm. does prob. 10 times more damage vs EACH Rec. angler. I just think it is silly to ignore that and compare the 2 sectors while ignore the # of fisherman in each segment.

While it might be true that on a per-angler basis the removals are not equitable, I would have to see or do the math to know if it is accurate and that is not what we are discussing here. I am sure it is out there somewhere, but that doesn't change how many fish are being killed annually. Do you think the fish care if you kill them as opposed to someone who holds a commercial license?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by tlapinski

While it might be true that on a per-angler basis the removals are not equitable, I would have to see or do the math to know if it is accurate and that is not what we are discussing here. I am sure it is out there somewhere, but that doesn't change how many fish are being killed annually. Do you think the fish care if you kill them as opposed to someone who holds a commercial license?

No, a dead fish is a dead fish. But we are allowing each comm. to kill many more fish than each rec. angler. Seems unfair to put limits on one sector w/o any impact to the other sector and ignoring that 10% - 20%??? mortality bc it is a smaller % of the problem.

[DZ]

I believe they went to a slot because most people wanted a slot option at the time. Personally I'm fine with it.

[piemma]

Originally Posted by PaulS

No, a dead fish is a dead fish. But we are allowing each comm. to kill many more fish than each rec. angler. Seems unfair to put limits on one sector w/o any impact to the other sector and ignoring that 10% - 20%??? mortality bc it is a smaller % of the problem.

EXACTLY!!!! Toby, while I agree and there is empirical evidence, that the recs kill fish thru lousy C&R, there is no denying that the comm guys kill substancially more fish then is realized. There is the "market" and there is the "grey market". The back door of restaurants that buy, illegally from comms.
To say this doesn't exist is sticking your head in the sand. This is where a complete moratorium would help. If no one can have, sell, keep, kill, trade, whatever, Bass then the stocks would recover. It worked in the late 80s and it would work again.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by PaulS

No, a dead fish is a dead fish. But we are allowing each comm. to kill many more fish than each rec. angler. Seems unfair to put limits on one sector w/o any impact to the other sector and ignoring that 10% - 20%??? mortality bc it is a smaller % of the problem.

Increased restrictions on a rec fisherman's catch reduces their chances of keeping a fish. Increased restrictions on the commercial harvest limits reduces the chance of an economically viable industry. It does on the surface seem "unfair" and I also find the whole mess frustrating, but I think that the decision comes down to the balance of sustaining both the fishery and the industry.